The Continuing Decline Of Western Civilization ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Necessity I didn�t realize this at first, but the transit strike has really split opinion among people who normally hold very similar political ideals. People who would normally be united on issues such as health care and social security have parted ways on whether or not the strike was necessary and who�s to blame. So this is directed at them. Most of these individuals who don�t support it base their decision on the fact that the people who are hurt most by it are the poor, and I think this betrays an ignorance of the reasons why the strike is necessary, not to mention who is actually responsible, so I thought that I would set out a few points. First, people who make no distinction between the TWU and the MTA are being willfully ignorant of the realities on the ground. On every issue that has been the object of public debate, from the sale of the west side railyards, to the elimination of token booth clerks, to fare hikes, to the move to single operator trains, the TWU has stood with the riders, and not with the MTA. This moves along nicely to the fact that the MTA has been cutting jobs, and adding additional duties to existing jobs without increasing compensation for those jobs. So even before we get to negotiation the MTA has made cuts that directly affect workers. Also note that the TWU is the only route that transit workers have for grievances, and if the MTA doesn�t take it seriously, then it can�t do it�s job. Thus, on to the second point: The TWU cannot give in on a two-tier system. There are several reasons for this, but let me start off by saying that a two-tier system may not be legal material for discussion at collective bargaining negotiations anyway. Also, no New York union has sacrificed the un-born so far. If the TWU gives in, then it lowers the wages for incoming workers. �But,� you say, �the money is being contributed to their own pension plans, they�re getting it all back!� Except that the money they receive from their pension plans is not increasing. The increased pension pay-in detracts from their wages, but does not increase their pension. A ten-year increase of 4% to the pay-in directly corresponds to a ten-year decrease of 4% in compensation. If your compensation is lower, then your pension is lower too. Funny how that works. And if the TWU gives in now, it will be harder to resist such cuts in the future, further lowering wages for incoming workers. Transit workers do not have good job security. I know that the impression of government jobs is that they are highly secure, but that�s not really the case here. Consider what happens if you have to miss work for chemo-therapy sessions, or for heart surgery: you risk losing your job. The MTA issued 15,000 disciplinary actions against TWU workers in the last year. That�s one for every worker. Keep in mind, that the MTA hand-picks the people who get these jobs right now. There�s a long list who want in. Most that get selected are veterans, and none can have any criminal record. Does your boss come by your house to check on you if you call in sick? The MTA does. Do you fix trains cars in the snow, when you could have a higher paying job as a mechanic indoors working on cars? The reason people want these jobs is because of the benefits not because they get paid well, and certainly not because of the working conditions, because not only are they treated like shit, but they are regularly in hazardous areas. Lower wages and benefits means the job is less attractive to future workers. Can you see where this is going yet? Currently, there�s a long list of people applying for these transit jobs. If the job is less attractive, then less people will want the job. Which means that less-qualified candidates will get them. This will eventually result in lower quality of service, not just in terms of timeliness, but safety. Consider the value of a good mechanic. A good mechanic in New York is going to make two-three times as much working at a dealership or a private garage. They take the transit jobs because of the benefits package. Let me ask you, do you want to prevent the guy who worked on your car last and totally fucked it up from being the guy who works on your train? Would you like the trains to not break-down regularly, to not have more accidents? Then you have to provide the compensation that will keep competent people in place. If the TWU gives in to a two-tier system, then this will be used as a bargaining cudgel against other city employees. This isn�t really up for debate. Koch worried about this possibly happening during the 1980 strike. This is the reason that the other city unions, from the Policemen�s Benevolent Association to the sanitation workers, to the firemen and the teachers, this is why they support the strike. The cops and the firemen don�t have contracts, and are already underpaid. Same for the teachers. If the TWU accepts a two-tier system, with all of the baggage that entails, then the same will be forced on the cops and everyone else. NYC employs a lot of people, and all of them will see wage cuts, at a time when inflation is thought to be rising significantly. Perhaps you are also saying that you don�t have those kind of benefits, most people don�t. �Do they think they�re better than us?� Are you really saying that because most people, yourself included, have been beaten down, forced to accept less benefits, less pay, longer hours, poorer working conditions, and no job security with no recourse to complain, that those who have fought to retain their compensation and representation should just throw it all away? Is that what you�re saying? That you are better than them? If so, walk away now. �Okay,� you say. �A two-tier system is a probable road to ruin, and not just for the TWU workers. Also they have the right to fight for themselves. Why do they have to strike?� What other options do they have? The reason that big business and government like to �bust� strikes is that strikes can actually hurt them. Nothing else the workers do really can. When it�s the only card you have to play, you play it when you have to. But I can see that you are still blaming the union for the strike. Consider the following: TWU has repeatedly said that they cannot give in on a two-tier system, and that it would be grounds for a strike. They have been saying this since negotiations began, in fact, every single press conference it has been mentioned by either the reporters or the TWU spokesperson, often by both. The MTA was aware of their stance. The money that the two-tier system would save the city is far less than the cost a strike, and this is abundantly clear. The costs of overtime for the cops in the first two days of a strike is greater than ten years worth of savings from the proposed cuts. When it was clear that the TWU would not accept a two-tier system, they backed off. It wasn�t in what they called their �final offer�. At 11 pm the night of the strike, the Chair of the MTA board came to the table with the pension contribution increase as a surprise �addition� to the deal. The TWU had no choice but to strike, which they did with the full support of the other city unions, including police, firemen, and teachers, to the degree that other unions �loaned� them key personnel to help organize. The strike is fully the responsibility of the MTA board, and their political leash-holders. Conclusions are outside the scope of this, but for the sake of the thing: The only conclusions that one can take away is that the MTA and the Governor wanted a strike to occur; or they didn�t take the union seriously. If this was really a money issue, then the MTA would be cutting the salaries and benefits of management as well, unless they are class-ist. If they didn�t take the union seriously, then it�s simply that the governor and the board are class-ist too. If they wanted the strike, then it leads us straight to the governor�s political ambitions, and that he is beholden to people in DC who believe that any form of public enterprise (other than the military) is an affront of God, mom, and apple pie. Is the governor trying to reduce rider-ship and quality of service in order to eventually privatize the system? One last thing. Yes it�s true that the people hit hardest by this are the poorest. But it�s also true that the rich are impacted as well. And you have to keep in mind that transit workers earn a (lower) middle class income, and that money gets spread around in neighborhoods where not everyone has such a good job. Cutting their wages impacts their whole community. And keep in mind too, who forced this strike, and is on TV calling the people who get you safely to work �greedy thugs�. To sum up: if you are against the strike, then you are against collective bargaining. And if you are anti-union, then maybe you should think hard about why, because maybe it�s time to reassess where your loyalties actually lie. Are you really with the people, or are you with the people until you�re no longer one of them?
posted by tcdowc - 11:12 pm - 12.22.05 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
|
||||||